================
@@ -5817,7 +5817,10 @@ LValue CodeGenFunction::EmitHLSLArrayAssignLValue(const
BinaryOperator *E) {
LValue CodeGenFunction::EmitCallExprLValue(const CallExpr *E,
llvm::CallBase **CallOrInvoke) {
- RValue RV = EmitCallExpr(E, ReturnValueSlot(), CallOrInvoke);
----------------
ilya-biryukov wrote:
Would it be better to wrap a more generic function? I'm thinking about
`EmitLValue`
```cpp
LValue CodeGenFunction::EmitLValue(const Expr *E) {
LValue R;
R = runWithSufficientStackSpace([] { R = EmitLValueImpl(E); }, ...);
return R;
}
// The current function...
LValue CodeGenFunction::EmitLValueImpl(const Expr *E) {
ApplyDebugLocation DL(*this, E);
switch (E->getStmtClass()) {
...
}
```
That way we can cover a broader class of recursive expressions. I'm not sure
the coverage is complete,
but should probably be quite good for a start.
(We could also add a few tests for deep expressions that don't involve calls).
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/111701
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
